dirac

We must be reading a different thread, leonid.

Thank you for posting, Drew. I haven't seen the R&J either but I agree with you overall regarding the designs for Swan Lake, although I like the lake scene a little better. (Act I is irredeemable.) Agreed. It was a risky choice, and risk comes with....risks. But they need to be taken sometimes. Thanks for starting the topic, bart.

Very true, she always has a good Presidential anecdote to tell on those shows! As I recall she blamed her research assistants, but I think the consensus among the skeptical was that even if true, if research assistants are doing so much of the work that you’re unable to distinguish your own writing, there’s a problem somewhere. Some background. Related.

This particular misuse of fulsome has been around for awhile, so it's not unique to you, sejacko. I remember Gelsey Kirkland referring in her first book, edited by the late Jacqueline Onassis, to "fulsome breasts." Not Gelsey's fault, of course, but you'd think a copy editor would have come to her aid.

Thank you for those links, Quiggin. That quote from Pierpont is wonderfu, and I wasn't familiar with it.

I’d also like to suggest as a matter of form that we refrain from calling fellow BTers ‘vulgar,’ a term easily misunderstood.

I understand that when Martha Graham took up with Erick Hawkins, Louis Horst moaned, "It's Ruth and Ted all over again, and she swore to me it would never happen in her life." Quote from memory and could be inaccurate in the wording, but that was the gist. The actress Louise Brooks danced with Denishawn when she was a teenager. I read a biography where the writer said that Brooks must have been a very talented dancer because Ted Shawn, no less, had singled her out - unfamiliar with the internal dynamics of the troupe, he didn't realize that being handed off to Teddy was no great compliment. (I'm sure Brooks was perfectly lovely, though. She danced with Shawn in Xochitl.)

I saw the episode last night. Didn’t get off to the most promising start – Jon Hamm started gazing off into space and I thought, Oh, dear, Don’s flashing back again. Although this was a highly unusual flashback as Don wasn’t actually there for most of the events he’s flashing back to. I agree with you, this was contrived, but a lot of this first episode screams contrivance – what a timely fire drill, and doesn’t Don leap promptly out of bed as soon as he hears the bell! I’ll bet he’s one of the volunteer sweepers for the office fire drills at Sterling Cooper. Guess that stewardess wasn’t so tempting, although she looked quite fetching in her underwear (I just love the lingerie in this show.) The best bits by far involved the awarding of the leadership of the accounts department to Pete and Ken both. I think Ken is going to kick Pete’s butt, but we’ll see. I could have done without the ant farm symbolism.

Helene writes: Poitier was never a very exciting actor, for me anyway -- of course, he was hampered by the limitations of the roles he played and the dignified image he had to maintain -- but he was plainly a most intelligent one, so I'd think he'd come up with a decent book, if not an exciting one. I'm not familiar with the Julie/Julia book, blog, or movie, although I do plan to see the film very soon, but a person whose opinion I find reliable said much the same thing as you about the sanitization of Julie (adding also that Julie had done her own sanitizing from blog to book, and the blog was much the superior product).

Thanks for continuing to check in, vagansmom. Goodwin is a very readable writer, although also a notorious plagiarist, alas. I've heard nothing like that in relation to Team of Rivals, though. One of the biggest challenges a writer can take on is to make a reader understand and even sympathize with a difficult character, I think.

No one could do miserable like Bogarde. As for Sal, he's so glaringly obvious in his faux macho that I don't know why the entire office hasn't sussed him out yet. Thank you for the link to Stuever’s piece, Helene. He seemed to be critiquing the hype and the show’s fan base more than the show itself, and he was too hard on it in general, I thought. For all the complaints I outlined earlier it's superior to a lot of the other stuff out there. As I said, I'll continue to watch (and whine when it seems called for). I do agree with him that the cast's smoking leaves much to be desired, but it's a common failing among today's actors, especially the younger ones. Either they don't know how to smoke a cigarette or they don't know how to look natural doing it.

I have mixed feelings about Mad Men, to be honest, Simon. The idea is great and the production design is cool, but Matthew Weiner and his writers haven’t always been able to come up with strong stories, and although there have been some very good individual episodes what they do come up with isn’t always so satisfying. In other words, I find myself watching in a state of mild boredom more than I would like. I spent a long time during Season One waiting for them to get over the hair and clothes and attitudes to actual plotting, and and the influence of The Sopranos hung heavily over everything. If not for John Slattery’s intermittent appearances I probably would have ceased watching entirely. I also like Vincent Kartheiser as Pete. Still, I persist in my viewing and will definitely report back in this space when I’ve seen the new episode. A Nolan Miller revival would be kind of fun, actually. Mad Men is made for American Movie Channel, and so while things are a little looser than network television, they don’t have the freedom of shows made for HBO or Showtime and you are not likely to see much full frontal action, which is fine by me. Anyone else see it last night?

Thank you, rg. I would have hoped for more classical material, but this movie should be a pleasure to see in any case. The POB dancers seem to be a clever and articulate lot, so I expect the film to be an intellectual pleasure, as well.

Wolcott linked to the original 'barb' with an enthusiastic endorsement and elected to use that quote, however. It is worth asking if the occasional link makes up for the occasional sneer, but I suppose it is best to return good for evil.

The latest from Wolcott: Ahem.

A sequel is in the works.

Thank you for posting, Mashinka. Endless variations can be played on this particular theme.

Move over, Hugo von Hofmannsthal. Thanks for posting, Mme. Hermine.

It’s inevitable, I guess (and given Fawcett’s uncommon openness about her illness it’s hard to call it an invasion of privacy). Alana Stewart seems to be an actual friend so perhaps Fawcett knew she'd be doing it.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. It’s still possible for art and music to be ‘transgressive,’ to use the current jargon, although I grant you it’s harder than it used to be. As far as some of the popular composers were concerned, it was good riddance. Rodgers and Hart once wrote a song on the subject called "I Like to Recognize the Tune" and Jerome Kern really, really hated the way jazz musicians messed around with his compositions. I'm not sure beauty and excitement are so esoteric. I don’t think miliosr was commenting on aesthetics - the point is that jazz began moving away from its popular roots around then and at this stage there is probably no going back. The new versions of old standards offered today don't do much to reverse that trend - those standards aren't 'popular' any more (and are now often treated as a kind of light classical music). Assuming you can find a jazz club. They're thinner on the ground than they used to be. That’s my impression, as well. Great discussion, everyone, and thanks to Kathleen and volcanohunter for looking closely at the stats.

Here's a link to the article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3103850572.html I don't know that the 'average American' sees or hears jazz as much of anything nowadays. He probably hears more classical music than jazz, I'd bet. I'm not sure what these stats alone tell us, if anything. I like jazz well enough although I'm no great fan, but my impression is that the music began fading in mass popularity beginning with the rise of bebop. The Jazz at Lincoln Center series symbolizes the pretensions described by Teachout, and I leave it to more committed fans to ask if they benefit the music much.

You're most welcome, Latecat. Thanks for posting. I grew up with the Little House books (wasn't a regular viewer of the television series) and followed the discussion over Rose's role in the writing of the book for awhile.

An interesting article on Laura Ingalls Wilder, the author of the Little House on the Prairie books, and her daughter Rose Wilder Lane by Judith Thurman in The New Yorker.

What Makes Sammy Run? is indeed a good read. Schulberg wasn't the world's most subtle writer, but it's a great snapshot of Hollywood at that place and time.

You're doing fine, Richka, as Alexandra said. Thank you for reviving this thread. Welcome to the board and please do tell us more.